4 ms·

I think the lesson should be: If a species is hovering over the brink of extinction, it's a better idea to do whatever it takes and only worry about the consequ

I think the lesson should be: If a species is hovering over the brink of extinction, it's a better idea to do whatever it takes and only worry about the consequences later... Of course, if rim-laying had been fixated, the species would still have become extinct...

shostack 12y ago
Or perhaps to dig deeper as to WHY they are on the brink of extinction. If they develop a trait that causes them to lay their eggs on the rim (which can be directly linked to the species decline), isn't that just Darwin at work? Who are we to step in an say "yep, they're idiots for doing it, but we should still save them."
- vanderZwan 12y ago
  That kind of trait doesn't just come out of the blue - there always is some form of selection pressure involved. Most likely caused by us in some way. That's why we need to step in. But yes, ideally at the point that causes this selection pressure to exist in the first place.
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  Charles Darwin was a scientist, not a super-natural deity responsible for evolution. He can't be "at work". Extinction events for natural reasons shouldn't be as frequent. Otherwise there would be far fewer species left. Therefore any extinction process we witness, especially with a species starting out with a healthy population, probably isn't natural.
brownbat 12y ago
> If a species is hovering over the brink of extinction, it's a better idea to do whatever it takes... With the caveat that some species don't qualify for protection. Variola major, for example, or Plasmodium malariae. I'd even go so far as supporting the complete elimination of Anopheles albimanus and several of its relatives, and I don't think I'm the only one. Not trying to detract from your point, just... this area has a lot of weird wrinkles that are hard to navigate. Radiolab reminded me of that last week, discussing some measures used to preserve the Galapagos: http://www.radiolab.org/story/galapagos/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/galapagos/ It added an addendum, a heartbreaking story about bird preservation, and how difficult it is to preserve species that fare better without human contact in a world now utterly full of humans: http://www.radiolab.org/story/birds/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/birds/
- willthames 12y ago
  Cane toads were introduced to Australia [1] with devastating consequences to the local fauna. I suspect that's one of the species it'd be most happy to be rid of. Then there's the feral rabbits, camels, horses (brumbies), pigs etc. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toads_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toads_in_Australia

shostack 12y ago

Or perhaps to dig deeper as to WHY they are on the brink of extinction. If they develop a trait that causes them to lay their eggs on the rim (which can be directly linked to the species decline), isn't that just Darwin at work? Who are we to step in an say "yep, they're idiots for doing it, but we should still save them."

vanderZwan 12y ago
That kind of trait doesn't just come out of the blue - there always is some form of selection pressure involved. Most likely caused by us in some way. That's why we need to step in. But yes, ideally at the point that causes this selection pressure to exist in the first place.
bayesianhorse 12y ago
Charles Darwin was a scientist, not a super-natural deity responsible for evolution. He can't be "at work". Extinction events for natural reasons shouldn't be as frequent. Otherwise there would be far fewer species left. Therefore any extinction process we witness, especially with a species starting out with a healthy population, probably isn't natural.

brownbat 12y ago

> If a species is hovering over the brink of extinction, it's a better idea to do whatever it takes... With the caveat that some species don't qualify for protection. Variola major, for example, or Plasmodium malariae. I'd even go so far as supporting the complete elimination of Anopheles albimanus and several of its relatives, and I don't think I'm the only one. Not trying to detract from your point, just... this area has a lot of weird wrinkles that are hard to navigate. Radiolab reminded me of that last week, discussing some measures used to preserve the Galapagos: http://www.radiolab.org/story/galapagos/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/galapagos/ It added an addendum, a heartbreaking story about bird preservation, and how difficult it is to preserve species that fare better without human contact in a world now utterly full of humans: http://www.radiolab.org/story/birds/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/birds/

willthames 12y ago
Cane toads were introduced to Australia [1] with devastating consequences to the local fauna. I suspect that's one of the species it'd be most happy to be rid of. Then there's the feral rabbits, camels, horses (brumbies), pigs etc. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toads_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toads_in_Australia